If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I have a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same. I won't go into spoilers for Mother 3, but think of Black and White's story of the dragon and the twins. Also, chimeras are kind of like Pokémon.

Um... that was the point, because that's exactly what Bachmann was doing.

Bachmann's letter focuses on three parts, the Father, the Mother, and the Brother. The mother having the biggest connection, and one that does warrant investigation. But John Stewart completely ignored that.

Bachmann's letter focuses on three parts, the Father, the Mother, and the Brother. The mother having the biggest connection, and one that does warrant investigation. But John Stewart completely ignored that.

If it really warranted an investigation, congress would have done an investigation. This is just another Red Scare.

I have a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same. I won't go into spoilers for Mother 3, but think of Black and White's story of the dragon and the twins. Also, chimeras are kind of like Pokémon.

Seems like the big problem is accusing her publically over a radio station rather than just asking for an investigation if she wants it. There's nothing wrong with investigation a real connection if there is one (and family connections don't always mean anything) but since Bachmann started by going to the media, it looks exactly like she was trying to damage Abedin's career, because regardless of the way the investigation turns out, Abedin would never fully recover from a full-fledged media campaign, and Bachmann's got to know that.

The big problem was trying to pass off the raving research of Frank Gaffney as facts in this letter.

Except in this case the research is right and has been documented by other sources? And if it was wrong why not investigate it and prove it wrong?

Go ahead, investigate it. Never mind the question of whether or not it's a security risk to share genetics with the Muslim Brotherhood, never mind that they're not implicating any specific action of hers that would indicate that she is actually using this familial connection to help the Brotherhood, and never mind that he actual choice and actions as a person instead of her genetic and ethnic status as a Muslim would indicate the exact opposite of the accusations against her - they should investigate whatever they think might be a security risk. Just don't go to the media and tell them all about it so the nation can start villifying her prematurely.

And then investigate the five of them for exploiting what they percieved as a security issue to further their political careers.

Originally Posted by Senator McCain

“To say that the accusations made...are not substantiated by the evidence they offer is to be overly polite and diplomatic about it. It is far better, and more accurate, to talk straight: These allegations about Huma, and the report from which they are drawn, are nothing less than an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable woman, a dedicated American, and a loyal public servant.

“The letter alleges that three members of Huma’s family are ‘connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.’ Never mind that one of those individuals, Huma’s father, passed away two decades ago. The letter and the report offer not one instance of an action, a decision, or a public position that Huma has taken while at the State Department that would lend credence to the charge that she is promoting anti-American activities within our government. Nor does either document offer any evidence of a direct impact that Huma may have had on one of the U.S. policies with which the authors of the letter and the producers of the report find fault. These sinister accusations rest solely on a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations of members of Huma’s family, none of which have been shown to harm or threaten the United States in any way. These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis, and no merit. And they need to stop now.

Never thought I'd use McCain's words as support.

Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore

Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

Go ahead, investigate it. Never mind the question of whether or not it's a security risk to share genetics with the Muslim Brotherhood, never mind that they're not implicating any specific action of hers that would indicate that she is actually using this familial connection to help the Brotherhood, and never mind that he actual choice and actions as a person instead of her genetic and ethnic status as a Muslim would indicate the exact opposite of the accusations against her - they should investigate whatever they think might be a security risk. Just don't go to the media and tell them all about it so the nation can start villifying her prematurely.

I have a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same. I won't go into spoilers for Mother 3, but think of Black and White's story of the dragon and the twins. Also, chimeras are kind of like Pokémon.

I think we need to investigate him and make sure he's not doing anything suspicious.

I think it was brought up in the 2008 elections, that because Obama has so many radical connections, that he would not have even gotten security clearance close to what he has now if he were not a elected official.

In what way is the Muslim brotherhood a terrorist organization, the last remotely 'terrorist' thing they've done happened 83 years ago.

If they wanted in investigation they could have asked for one without making it so public, this is deliberate public shaming of a person whose family has connections to a group that, while its clearly anti-american, can hardly be equated to the the Taliban.

In what way is the Muslim brotherhood a terrorist organization, the last remotely 'terrorist' thing they've done happened 83 years ago.

If they wanted in investigation they could have asked for one without making it so public, this is deliberate public shaming of a person whose family has connections to a group that, while its clearly anti-american, can hardly be equated to the the Taliban.

You mean other than Hamas being considered a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood correct? As that would pretty much suggest that they have done 'terrorist' acts alot closer than 83 years ago.

Actually by wing and connection I am speaking to Hamas' founding charter.

Article Two: The Link between Hamas and the Association of Muslim Brothers. The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a world organization, the largest Islamic Movement in the modern era. It is characterized by a profound understanding, by precise notions and by a complete comprehensiveness of all concepts of Islam in all domains of life: views and beliefs, politics and economics, education and society, jurisprudence and rule, indoctrination and teaching, the arts and publications, the hidden and the evident, and all the other domains of life.

Saying that the Muslim Brotherhood is not related to Hamas is like saying Hitler Youth had nothing to do with the NAZI Party. Here is a quote from The National, a respected news source that proves my point:

Furthermore, analysts say rising violence between Israel and militants in the Gaza Strip, ruled by the Islamic Hamas, suggests Hamas is growing bolder because it's encouraged by the rise in prominence of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's dominant Islamist movement from which it is an offshoot.

Saying that the Muslim Brotherhood supports cooperation with Israel is actually so inaccurate it's offensive. I have gathered a couple of articles that state the opposite. In fact, why don't you read the one containing the above quote.

Another article, which explains how Egyptian Parliament states Israel is the number one enemy of Israel saying "Egypt calls Israel its number one enemy" . It also features a video with the former Israeli ambassador to Egypt that not only reiterates the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood hates Israel, but also that the Muslim Brotherhood is a Islamist supremacist organization that will try to replace Egyptian law with the Qu'ran and Shariah law. They even went as far to teach in school the Islam is by far the most important thing. Not very accommodating of the Christian, Atheist, Jewish, and Non-Muslim students is it?

"Egypt will never be the friend, partner or ally of the Zionist entity [Israel] which we consider as the first enemy of Egypt and the Arab nation," reads the text of a report prepared by the Arab Affairs Committee of the People's Assembly, the lower house of Egyptian parliament.

This exert from the above article even contains a quote directly from Egyptian parliament that clearly states the Egypt does not support a relationship with Israel.

Nobody who is enlightened about this topic can honestly say that the Muslim Brotherhood is a friend of Israel. Not only that, but the Muslim Brotherhood is enemy to anyone who is not a Muslim. This quote, taken from one of the above articles, shows how a very high ranking member of the Muslim Brotherhood shows his complete disregard for the lives of non-Muslims:

Ghannem praised Egyptian soldiers deployed by President Hosni Mubarak to Egyptian cities, saying they “would not kill their brothers.”

By "brothers" he means Muslims. Interesting isn't it? How the Muslim Brotherhood seems to only care about the lives of other Muslims. Could that be because the Qu'ran itself teaches disdain and hatred for non-Muslims? No, that couldn't be it.

I have noticed several people linking articles to the notoriously leftist Huffington Post. Did it ever occur that they might be biased to try and defend Muslims? Even in defiance of the truth? I am not saying this source can't be trusted, because it most certainly can. I am just saying that their articles should be taken with a grain of salt, since they may be biased.

On another note, the very FBI states that the Muslim Brotherhood has terrorist ties and supports a hateful ideology. This quote here sums that up pretty well:

"I'm concerned that the Muslim Brotherhood is using peaceful protests in Egypt for a power grab, and our government doesn't seem to grasp their threat," Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., told the committee and the witnesses. "The Muslim Brotherhood isn't a danger because they are terrorists, but because they push an extremist ideology that causes others to commit acts of terrorism."

The very statement that the Muslim Brotherhood is not an organization that supports Islamic superiority (not at all different from the notorious Nazi Party, that preached White Christian superiority) is absurd. Their very motto is: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." THEIR MOTTO PREACHES JIHAD FOR GOD'S SAKE! For those of you who don't know what Jihad is, it literal means "to struggle". Jihad is often referred to as violent actions that are taken to spread Islam and eliminate non-Muslims, but it can also be cultural. Jihad is defined as a holy war against non-Muslims.

Saying that an organisation whose motto clearly states that Jihad is their way is not supporting terrorism in the name of Islam or violence against non-Muslims is absolute insanity. That would be such an untrue statement that I am at a loss for something that would even remotely be on the same level of stupidity. The Director of the FBI himself regards the Muslim Brotherhood as a threat:

Elements of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist group whose ideology has inspired terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, are in the United States and have supported terrorism here and overseas, FBI Director Robert Mueller told a House committee Thursday.

On another note, the very term Islamophobic just furthermore proves the media's one-sided views: those views being that there is nothing threatening about Islam. Islamophobia literally means an irrational fear/dislike of Islam. There is nothing irrational about it. According to the NCTC (National Counter-Terrorism Center) atleast 68+ % of terrorism attacks were committed by Muslims, keep in mind that 12% of attacks were committed by unknown groups, and 16% were committed by political groups that may or may not be pro-Islam. So, a person's fear of a group responsible for more than two thirds of the terrorism in the world is irrational? Keep in mind that this same 2010 report states that only 2% of terrorism is committed by Christians. Here is a link to the PDF of said report:

As if that wasn't enough, according to a Pew Global Attitudes Survey, one in seven Muslims in major European countries (such as France, and Great Britain) think that suicide bombings are justified because they defend Islam. Once again, a fear of a group of people where one in seven think that the killing of innocent people is okay if it is in the name of their group is completely justifiable.

In a similar survey, over 60% of Palestinians promote the bombing of Israeli towns and cities. That isn't agree with the bombings, but that actually promote it. Again, anyone in their right mind should dislike of a group of people that want to bomb innocent men, women, and children.

If you are questioning where I got these statistics, possibly thinking they are from an anti-Islam right wing source, then you'll be happy to know I actually obtained them from a quoted source within Muslim organization, WikiIslam.

Do not get me wrong, I am not saying that every Muslim is a radical violent terrorist, just like every German wasn't a member of the Nazi party. However, the vast majority of Muslims, just as the vast majority of Germans, support their respective hateful idealistic groups, may that be outwardly or inwardly. Even those that stood by and did nothing to stop the spread of a hateful ideology are to be frowned upon. Very few Muslims, just as very few Germans, actually stood up vocally and took an active stand against the violent groups affiliated with them. If the Muslims of the world are so peaceful, how come they are not standing against the hatred and violence that is committed in the name of their religion? Words cannot describe the respect I have for the courageous few Muslims who do stand against groups such The Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and Islamic terrorism in general. Those Muslims are an example of bravery. The only problem is, the majority of Muslims support evil in the name of their religion with their silence.

Let us not forget to read the Qu'ran, for it explains how the true goal of Islam is domination. As well as preaching hatred for non-Muslims, the fact that it is okay to beat your "disobedient wife", and the marrying of underage girls. Don't believe me? Read it. The very holy prophet Mohammed, who Muslims believe is the perfect model of a man, married a 6 year old girl, and engaged in intercourse with her at the age of 9. I'll let you be the judge, but should any sane person worship a pedophile?

Let us not forget to read the Qu'ran, for it explains how the true goal of Islam is domination. As well as preaching hatred for non-Muslims, the fact that it is okay to beat your "disobedient wife", and the marrying of underage girls. Don't believe me? Read it. The very holy prophet Mohammed, who Muslims believe is the perfect model of a man, married a 6 year old girl, and engaged in intercourse with her at the age of 9. I'll let you be the judge, but should any sane person worship a pedophile?

The truth is, technically speaking, world domination is the goal of all three of those monotheistic religions(Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). The very first commandment that is written on the golden tablets that Moses received is to conquer in the name of Yahweh.

And most Muslims will tell you that you/we are misinterpreting and misunderstanding, hmm if God and Muhammad were so smart and so 'in the know' then they would have known that their words will be used for justifying something bad, but no they said what they said regardless. Either they were not all knowing and didn't know or they knew, in which case I'd call the first negligence and the latter malice.

There really is no dismissing the Aisha thing, a 9 year old body is not ready or prepared to have sex, especially with a 40+ year old man, imagine how nice it would have been for her(sarcasm, it would have sucked). It is just wrong in any way that you look at it and it makes one question this 'God" and Muhammad.

The truth is, technically speaking, world domination is the goal of all three of those monotheistic religions(Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). The very first commandment that is written on the golden tablets that Moses received is to conquer in the name of Yahweh.

And most Muslims will tell you that you/we are misinterpreting and misunderstanding, hmm if God and Muhammad were so smart and so 'in the know' then they would have known that their words will be used for justifying something bad, but no they said what they said regardless. Either they were not all knowing and didn't know or they knew, in which case I'd call the first negligence and the latter malice.

There really is no dismissing the Aisha thing, a 9 year old body is not ready or prepared to have sex, especially with a 40+ year old man, imagine how nice it would have been for her(sarcasm, it would have sucked). It is just wrong in any way that you look at it and it makes one question this 'God" and Muhammad.

Saying that we are misunderstanding the malicious nature of the Qu'ran is like saying we are misunderstanding the malicious nature of Mein Kampf. Th Qu'ran states of several occasions to kill non-believers wherever you may find them. As you pointed out, Judaism and Christianity are not exactly all that friendly to non-believers either. I never said they were. That is the root of my problem with religion as a whole; they express little tolerance (or none at all) for people who do not share the same views. Muslims just seem to be the ones actually acting out on the hateful part of their religion, while Christians (most) left that nonsense in the Dark Ages.

Saying that we are misunderstanding the malicious nature of the Qu'ran is like saying we are misunderstanding the malicious nature of Mein Kampf. Th Qu'ran states of several occasions to kill non-believers wherever you may find them. As you pointed out, Judaism and Christianity are not exactly all that friendly to non-believers either. I never said they were. That is the root of my problem with religion as a whole; they express little tolerance (or none at all) for people who do not share the same views. Muslims just seem to be the ones actually acting out on the hateful part of their religion, while Christians (most) left that nonsense in the Dark Ages.

Explain Breivik's actions then...a Christian who wanted to rid Norway of cultural impurities and destroy the "multicultural/feminist government." Sounds like they haven't left violent nonsense in the Dark Ages. On top of that, you have protests such as these perpetrated by Christians and their Churches http://www.thegaymanifesto.com/wp-co...odhatefags.jpg (Mods: If Photo is too offensive, I don't mind it edited out). It's hardly indicative of Christians being any less hateful than the Muslims. On top of all of that, you have people using Leviticus 20 to justify how Gays should be killed because they don't fit their ideology. Doesn't sound like they left it in the Dark Ages now have they?

My point is no matter what, all religions will always impose their beliefs, but to say that something is left in the Dark Ages is simply inaccurate for the pure reason that we're living in a world where we would rather kill than listen.

Alder's quote about understanding the other side would really help out if people opened up their eyes instead of resort of violence.

Having been by Mrs. Clinton's side since her days as First Lady, Huma Abedin is known and deeply respected in Washington and beyond. During the past two decades, Abedin has been repeatedly vetted by the Secret Service, FBI, and CIA.

Expanding on my previous point, these people truly are the next round of Tea Party Conspiracy theorists. Gaffney's website (the cited source in the Bachmann brigade letter) makes quite clear that dangerous Muslims have infiltrated the highest levels of government. Investigations of Mrs. Abedin will not suffice because the investigation will be led by secret Muslim brotherhood agents.

Those who believe the allegations that Huma Abedin is a Muslim Brotherhood mole and support Gaffney have already made up their minds. No amount of factual evidence that Mrs. Abedin is clear to be in the position will suffice. That is how conspiracy theorists theorize and how conspiracy theories thrive.

Saying that we are misunderstanding the malicious nature of the Qu'ran is like saying we are misunderstanding the malicious nature of Mein Kampf. .

I wasn't disagreeing with you, if you did/didn't know. Because I wasn't inferring that it is misconception/misunderstanding and was saying that Muslims(or any of them monos) will tell you this when you disagree, etc.

Explain Breivik's actions then...a Christian who wanted to rid Norway of cultural impurities and destroy the "multicultural/feminist government." Sounds like they haven't left violent nonsense in the Dark Ages. On top of that, you have protests such as these perpetrated by Christians and their Churches http://www.thegaymanifesto.com/wp-co...odhatefags.jpg (Mods: If Photo is too offensive, I don't mind it edited out). It's hardly indicative of Christians being any less hateful than the Muslims. On top of all of that, you have people using Leviticus 20 to justify how Gays should be killed because they don't fit their ideology. Doesn't sound like they left it in the Dark Ages now have they?

My point is no matter what, all religions will always impose their beliefs, but to say that something is left in the Dark Ages is simply inaccurate for the pure reason that we're living in a world where we would rather kill than listen.

Alder's quote about understanding the other side would really help out if people opened up their eyes instead of resort of violence.

You're absolutely right. As I said before, there are religious fanatics of all kinds; people who justify killing and hatred in the name of their God. My point was that in Judeo-Christian nations, the fascist laws and ideals held in place by the government/monarchy that were taken from (mostly) Christian/Catholic scripture during the Dark Ages are no longer held in place. There will always be religious fanatics who want to kill infidels/gays/whatever like in the examples you provided. The point was that in some Islamic countries, those hateful religious ideals are held in place by law and supported by an uncomfortably large percent of the population. Whereas in predominantly Jewish/Christian societies, the hateful ideals from said religious are completely distant from laws.

Originally Posted by Cosmical Tel El Amarna

I wasn't disagreeing with you, if you did/didn't know. Because I wasn't inferring that it is misconception/misunderstanding and was saying that Muslims(or any of them monos) will tell you this when you disagree, etc.

You know guys if you replace Muslim with Christian and the Quran with the Bible in Wes Harris's statement, you get this.

“Have you ever read the Bible? I suggest you do so, because anyone that is a Christian is a threat to this country, and that’s a fact,” Harris told the Times. “There is no such thing as a moderate Christian. If they are Christian they have to follow the Bible. That’s their religion and that’s their doctrine.”